[Users] GetComponents and git-repos

[Erik Schnetter]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 16:45 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:

> Erik Schnetter wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 16:24 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:
>>> Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 15:46 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>
>>>>> I heard you are looking for a feedback on desirable features for
>>>>> GetComponents, so I have one feature to report that I actually  
>>>>> don't
>>>>> like. I think the directory git-repos does break the logical
>>>>> organization of arrangements and thorns. It would be desirable to
>>>>> have all git-repos arrangements actually located in the  
>>>>> arrangements
>>>>> directory. Another logical way of organizing the arrangements  
>>>>> would
>>>>> be to discriminate all of them by the type of repository their   
>>>>> versions
>>>>> are controlled. Something as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> arrangements-cvs
>>>>> arrangements-git
>>>>> arrangements-svn
>>>>> arrangements-hg
>>>>> etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> It may just be a matter of taste and I can live of that, but I  
>>>>> thought
>>>>> to bring this issue up and maybe more people agree on a neater  
>>>>> way of
>>>>> labeling the arrangement directories(y).
>>>> Eric
>>>> (Without answering to Bruno's suggestion)
>>>> I think we don't need the distinction between git-repos and hg- 
>>>> repos  etc.; instead, there could be a single directory "repos"  
>>>> that contains  all those repositories that don't fit into the  
>>>> arrangement structure.   You could also place a README file into  
>>>> this directory, explaining in  a few lines why this directory is  
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> This sounds as a good idea as well. However there should be some  
>>> sort of
>>> label or GetComponents directives to distinguish between these
>>> repositories. For example, while carpet and krank wouldn't fit in  
>>> the
>>> usual arrangement/thorn organization, McLachlan would.
>> Indeed!  I didn't spot this.
>> -erik
> What about a directive such as !REPO_TREE to indicate the kind of  
> tree the repository has? It would default to "arrangement", but  
> could also have an "other" value in order to checkout its components  
> into "repos"
> instead of "arrangements".


It is not possible to check out only parts of a git or hg repository;  
this is different from svn or cvs.  Since GetComponents checks out  
individual thorns, this means it has to check out the complete  
repository in a different location and then set up symbolic links.   
This is actually no different for McLachlan if someone does not want  
all the McLachlan thorns.

REPO_TREE doesn't seem necessary; whether the repository contains  
arrangements or thorns is already described by the REPO_PATH  
variable.  If REPO_PATH is $2, then the repository contains thorns,  
and the repository name can be used as arrangement name.

-erik

-- 
Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>   http://www.cct.lsu.edu/~eschnett/